In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8261-8262 of 2022-SC- Kerala Police Act does not create substantive offences; Failure to disclose conviction for holding dharna in front of Panchayat office is no ground for declaring election void: SC
Justices S. Abdul Nazeer & V. Ramasubramanian [09-11-2022]

feature-top

 


Read Judgment: RAVI NAMBOOTHIRI v. K.A. BAIJU & ORS 


 

Mansimran Kaur

 

New Delhi, November 10, 2022: The Supreme Court has observed that all State enactments such as Kerala Police Act, Madras Police Act etc., are aimed at better regulation of the police force and they do not create substantive offences.

The Division Bench of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice V. Ramasubramanian allowed the appeals instituted by the appellant on being aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala, confirming an order passed by the Additional District Judge setting aside his election as Councilor of Ward No.5 of Annamanada Gram Panchayath, in the elections held in November 2015. 

 

The Division bench was of the view that that the District Court and the High Court were wrong in declaring the election of the appellant to be void on the ground that the failure of the appellant to disclose in Form 2A, his conviction under the Kerala Police Act amounted to ‘undue influence on the free exercise of the electoral right’ and also a violation of Section 52(1A) read with Section 102(1) (ca) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 


Facts in brief relevant for adjudication of the appeals were such that in November, 2015, elections to the Annamanada Gram Panchayath were held. Apart from others, the appellant and the first respondent contested from Ward No.5. On November 7, 2015, the appellant was declared as having been elected from Ward No.5.

 

 The first respondent filed an Election Petition on the file of the District Munsif Court, on December 4, 2015 challenging the election of the appellant. The Election Petition was dismissed by the District Munsif Court, primarily on the ground that there was no prayer in the Election Petition to declare the election of the appellant as void, on the grounds stipulated in Section 102 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 

 

There was actually a prayer for canceling the election held on November 5, 2015. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Election Petition, the first respondent filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge. 

 

The appeal was allowed  and the election of the appellant was declared as void on the ground that the appellant suppressed in his nomination form, his involvement in a criminal case and that therefore he had committed a corrupt practice. Subsequently, aggrieved by the said judgment of the District Court, the appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court. 

 

The Revision Petition was dismissed by an order dated October 30, 2018. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition for review, but the same was also dismissed by the High Court.  Therefore, challenging the order passed in the Revision Petition and the order passed in the Review Petition, the appellant came up with two appeals.

 

After considering the rival contentions, the Court took into account Section 102 of the  Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 

 

In view of the same, the Court noted that subsection (1) of Section 102 places, (i) non qualification/disqualification of the returned candidate; (ii) commission of any corrupt practice by the returned candidate or his election agent or any other person with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent; (iii) the improper rejection of any nomination; and (iv) the furnishing of details under Section 52(1A) which are fake, on a much higher pedestal.

 

 If a challenge is made to the election of a candidate on any one of these four grounds, it is not necessary to show that the result of the election has been materially affected, the Court further stated. 

 

In pursuance of the same, the Court noted that the appellant admittedly failed to furnish details of his past conviction in Form No.2A. Therefore, the ground on which his election was sought to be declared void, falls squarely within Section 102(1)(ca) of the Act.

 

With respect to the offences alleged under the Kerala Police Act , 1960, the Court noted that the question that was posed for consideration was  as to whether the non-disclosure of the conviction for such offences would also come within the purview of Section 102(1)(ca) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj  Act.

 

In pursuance of the same, the Court noted that the  failure of the appellant to disclose his conviction for an offence under the Kerala Police Act, 1960 for holding a dharna in front of the Panchayat office, cannot be taken as a ground for declaring an election void.

 

Hence, the Court observed that the District Court and the High Court were wrong in declaring the election of the appellant to be void on the ground that the failure of the appellant to disclose in Form 2A, his conviction under the Kerala Police Act amounted to ‘undue influence on the free exercise of the electoral right’ and also in violation of Section 52(1A) read with Section 102(1) (ca) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 

 

Thus, the appeals were accordingly allowed. 


 

Add a Comment